South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

You are here:
SAFLII >>
Databases >>
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown >>
2016 >>
[2016] ZAECGHC 89
| Noteup
| LawCite
Cronje v S (CA97/2015) [2016] ZAECGHC 89 (23 September 2016)
Download original files |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN
Case No.: CA97/2015
Date Heard: 19 September 2016
Date Delivered: 23 September 2016
In the matter between:
YOLISWA CONNIE CRONJE................................................................................................Appellant
And
THE STATE............................................................................................................................Respondent
JUDGMENT
EKSTEEN J:
[1] The appellant was convicted of premeditated murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to the provisions of section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 105 of 1997 (the Act). She now appeals, with leave of the Court a quo, against the sentence imposed.
[2] The appellant and the deceased had been in a relationship for some time and had had a child together. They were married in 2008, however, soon thereafter it appears that the relationship ran into difficulty. The deceased became involved in extra-marital affairs with other women and he failed to maintain the appellant and her child to their satisfaction. Maintenance orders were obtained against the deceased. Shortly prior to his death the deceased advised the appellant that he had removed her from his pension benefits and as a beneficiary from his insurance policies.
[3] It emerges from a confession made by the appellant, which was hotly disputed at the trial, but eventually admitted in evidence, that the appellant resolved to have the deceased killed. She conspired with two young men, the sons of a friend of hers, to kill the deceased. To this end she tendered to reward them in the amount of R10 000 to be paid upon the elimination of the deceased. So it happened that they met in December 2009 and meticulously planned the murder. It was resolved that on 24 December 2009 they would all meet at a particular tavern in the township to execute the treacherous deed.
[4] The appellant proceeded home on the stipulated date and invited the deceased to the tavern. There the two of them started drinking. Later the two hired assassins joined them and the merriment continued until after midnight. They all left the tavern together, as planned. The deceased was drunk and the appellant walked out in front leaving the appellant behind her with the two hired assassins. En route the two henchmen killed the deceased. One held him down whilst the other stabbed him repeatedly in the chest and neck before slitting his throat. The appellant upon hearing the commotion, returned to the scene where she stood by and watched all the action.
[5] The Judge a quo convicted the appellant on these facts. Following upon the conviction of the appellant a pre-sentence report was obtained from a social worker and a psychologist prepared a brief report. Evidence was tendered from the deceased’s sister, in respect of the impact which the events have had upon the family and their financial well-being, and from the said social worker. The appellant again took to the witness stand in mitigation. At this stage, for the first time in the trial proceedings she accepted some responsibility for the death of the deceased, however, still falling far short of the account which she had set out in her confession. I pause to record too that some three years after the commission of the offence the appellant gave birth to a child who was just six months old when she was sentenced.
[6] On appeal against the sentence it is argued on behalf of the appellant that the trial judge had erred in failing to hold against the sentence that substantial and compelling circumstances existed to deviate from the sentence of life imprisonment prescribed in the Act. It is contended that he ought to have held that the cumulative effect of the following considerations constituted substantial and compelling reasons not to impose life imprisonment:
(a) The appellant and the deceased experience marital problems;
(b) the deceased had been engaged in extra-marital affairs;
(c) the deceased did not properly maintain the appellant and their minor child;
(d) the deceased neglected to come to the marital home and when the appellant visited the deceased’s place of employment he chased her away;
(e) the only evidence against the appellant was her own confession; and
(f) the deceased has a six month old child.
[7] The trial Judge gave a carefully considered judgment in which he gave consideration to each of these grounds. Ms Crouse, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, was constrained to concede that she was unable to refer to any misdirection in reasoning of the trial Judge.
[8] The first four grounds raised relate to the motive giving rise to the contract to kill. These circumstances were carefully considered by the trial Judge in his judgment on the conviction which were incorporated into his judgment on sentence by specific reference. Whilst these considerations might assist to comprehend the thinking of the appellant they must be weighed up against the aggravating features of the case as the trial Judge properly did.
[9] The trial Judge recognised that the appellant had freely and voluntarily made a confession and he considered this factor. He correctly, however, commented that the appellant did not at any stage take the court into her confidence as to precisely why she decided to make the confession. She in fact denied the confession during trial and made scandalous and spurious accusations against the police officers involved in the taking down of her confession. This too the trial Judge considered.
[10] Finally there remains the important issue of the appellant’s baby. The appellant’s baby was a mere six months old at the time of the trial and the trial judge gave careful consideration to the well-being of the child. He lauded the efforts of the social worker who had prepared a pre-sentence report and testified prior to sentence to place the young child in a custodial situation which was very satisfactory. The social worker had also approached the father of the child who had agreed to assist financially and the parents of the appellant who have been supporting the appellant and her children for many years. They have assumed the responsibility for the support of this child.
[11] In all the circumstances I too find no misdirection in the reasoning of the trial Judge. When the aggravating features of the offence as set out earlier herein are weighed up against the favourable circumstances the former far outweigh the latter. I can find no basis to interfere with the finding of the trial Judge that there are no substantial and compelling circumstances which justify the imposition of a lesser sentence than that prescribed in the Act.
[12] In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
J W EKSTEEN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
LOWE J:
I agree.
M J LOWE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
BACELA AJ:
I agree.
X B BACELA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances:
For Appellant: Adv L Crouse
Instructed by Justice Centre: Grahamstown
For Respondent: Adv Mgenge
Instructed by National Director of Public Prosecution, Grahamstown